Diamond-coated sonic tips are more efficient for open debridement of molar furcations. A comparative manikin study

Bio-Inspired Systems in Nonsurgical Periodontal Therapy to Reduce Contaminated Aerosol during COVID-19: A Comprehensive and Bibliometric Review

Background: On 30 January 2020, a public health emergency of international concern was declared as a result of the new COVID-19 disease, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This virus is transmitted by air and, therefore, clinical practices with the production of contaminant aerosols are highly at risk. The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of bio-inspired systems, as adjuvants to nonsurgical periodontal therapy, in order to formulate bio-inspired protocols aimed at restoring optimal condition, reducing bacteremia and aerosols generation. Methods: A comprehensive and bibliometric review of articles published in English. Research of clinical trials (RCTs) were included with participants with chronic or aggressive periodontal disease, that have compared benefits for nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT). Results: Seventy-four articles have been included. For probing depth (PPD) there was a statically significant improvement in laser, probiotic, chlorhexidine groups, such as gain in clinical attachment level (CAL). Bleeding on probing (BOP) reduction was statistically significant only for probiotic and chlorhexidine groups. There were changes in microbiological and immunological parameters. Conclusions: The use of bio-inspired systems in nonsurgical periodontal treatment may be useful in reducing risk of bacteremia and aerosol generation, improving clinical, microbiological and immunological parameters, of fundamental importance in a context of global pandemic, where the reduction of bacterial load in aerosols becomes a pivotal point of clinical practice, but other clinical trials are necessary to achieve statistical validity.

Evaluation of a systematic digitized training program on the effectivity of subgingival instrumentation with curettes and sonic scalers in vitro

Objectives

Whereas the key role of subgingival instrumentation in periodontal therapy is well known, the influence of operators’ experience/training with different devices on treatment results is yet uncertain. Therefore, we assessed untrained undergraduate students, working on manikins, as to how effectively they learn to use curettes (GRA) and sonic scalers (AIR); hypothesizing that AIR will result in higher relative cleaning efficacy (RCE) than GRA.

Material and methods

Before baseline evaluation (T0), 30 operators (9 males, 21 females) received a 2-h theoretical lesson for both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly digitized training program for 45 min. During three sessions (T1–T3), the operators had to instrument six equivalent test teeth with GRA and AIR. At T0–T3, treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (RCE-b), and hard deposits (RCE-d) were measured.

Results

At T0, RCE-b was in mean(SD) 64.18(25.74) % for GRA, 62.25(26.69) % for AIR; (p = 0.172) and RCE-d 85.48(12.32) %/ 65.71(15.27) % (p < 0.001). At T3, operators reached highest RCE-b in both groups (GRA/AIR 71.54(23.90) %/71.75(23.05)%; p = 0.864); RCE-d GRA/AIR: 84.68(16.84) %/77.85(13.98) %; p < 0.001). Both groups achieved shorter treatment times after training. At T3, using curettes was faster (GRA/AIR 16.67(3.31) min/19.80(4.52) min; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

After systematic digitized training, untrained operators were able to clean 70% of the root surfaces with curettes and sonic scalers.

Clinical relevance

It can be concluded that a systematic digitized and interactive training program in manikin heads is helpful in the training of root surface debridement.

How to train periodontal endoscopy? Results of a pilot study removing simulated hard deposits in vitro

OBJECTIVES

There is uncertainty regarding the benefits of periodontal endoscopy (PE) for subgingival instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience and training with such a device on treatment results is unclear. Therefore, we compared in an in vitro study the use of PE for scaling and root planing (SRP) with the conventional non-surgical therapy, hypothesizing that using a PE allows to remove more simulated hard deposits than without (nPE), influenced by the operators' experience and training.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A sonic device and Gracey curettes were utilized by 11 operators (six dentists, five dental hygienists) in periodontitis manikins heads. The time required for treatment and the proportion of removed simulated hard deposits by SRP were measured.

RESULTS

Using the PE led to a significant difference in removal of simulated hard deposits (%) (mean ± SD) irrespective of operators' experience (PE 90.78 ± 12.10% (range 58.80-100%); nPE 79.98 ± 22.15% (range 38.10-100%, p < 0.001)), sub-analyses for different tooth types demonstrated a significant difference in favor of PE for front teeth (p < 0.001) and in the upper jaw independent of the tooth type (p < 0.001). Comparison of treatment times for two quadrants with and without PE showed a significantly longer treatment time with PE (∆22.27 ± 17.98 mins, p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the present pilot study, the use of PE led to more removal of simulated hard deposits but was concomitantly related to more time and financial effort. Using PE was most beneficial in the front area.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

PE may provide additional benefits for the removal of hard deposits compared to traditional SRP. The beneficial effect of PE seems not to be influenced by operators experience nor by pocket probing depth.

Subgingival instrumentation to remove simulated plaque in vitro: influence of operators' experience and type of instrument

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty regarding the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience on treatment results is unclear. We compared newly developed sonic, ultrasonic and hand instruments, hypothesizing that powered devices allow to remove more simulated plaque in less time than hand instruments, with significant influence of operators' experience.

METHODS

Sonic scaler (AIR), ultrasonic scaler (TIG) device and double Gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced operators (EOs) and four less experienced operators (LOs) in periodontitis manikin heads. The time required for treatment, the proportion of residual-simulated plaque and the weight loss caused by scaling as a proxy for root surface destruction were measured.

RESULTS

Using different instruments led to significantly different proportions of removed simulated plaque regardless of operators' experience (AIR, 80.2 ± 21.3 %, TIG, 69.9 ± 22.5 %, GRA, 73.1 ± 20.0 %) (p < 0.001). Treatment times did not significantly differ between EO and LO (p > 0.05). Weight loss was increased when using hand instead of powered instruments (p < 0.001), with significantly higher weight loss induced by LO than EO (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Within the present study, EO did not remove more simulated plaque in less time but induced less root surface destruction. Using a sonic device was most beneficial for plaque removal.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Successful root surface debridement requires both time and training regardless of the used instrument. Hand instruments might cause more damage to root surfaces, especially in the hands of less experienced operators.

A comparative study of the incidence of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus augmentation with a sonic oscillating handpiece versus a conventional turbine handpiece

BACKGROUND

Sonic instruments may reduce perforation rates of the schneiderian membrane during lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. This study compares the incidence of membrane perforations using a sonic handpiece with an oscillating diamond insert versus a turbine handpiece with a conventional rotary diamond stone during lateral window sinus augmentation procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart analysis identified all lateral window sinus augmentation procedures done during a defined period. Among these procedures, those performed with a sonic handpiece and an oscillating diamond insert (experimental) and those performed with a conventional turbine and rotary diamond stone (conventional) were selected for this study. Reported occurrences of sinus membrane perforations during preparation of the osteotomy and elevation of the sinus membrane, as well as postoperative complications, were recorded and compared between treatment groups.

RESULTS

Ninety-three consecutive patients were identified for a total of 130 sinus augmentation procedures (51 conventional, 79 experimental). Schneiderian membrane perforations were noted during preparation of the lateral window osteotomy in 27.5% of the sinuses in the conventional group and 12.7% of sinuses in the experimental group. During membrane elevation, perforations were noted in 43.1% of the sinuses in the conventional group and 25.3% of sinuses in the experimental group. Both differences in perforation rates were statistically significant (p < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the use of a sonic instrument to prepare the lateral window osteotomy during sinus elevation procedures resulted in a reduced perforation rate of the Schneiderian membrane compared with the conventional turbine instrument.

Comparative in vitro study of root roughness after instrumentation with ultrasonic and diamond tip sonic scaler

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the root surface roughness after instrumentation with hand curette and diamond-coated sonic and universal ultrasonic tips.

Materials and Methods:

Forty root surfaces of human teeth were randomly assigned to four treatment groups: control group (without instrumentation), curette instrumentation, ultrasonic instrumentation with universal tip and sonic instrumentation with diamond-coated tip. Each sample was instrumented with fifteen strokes. Before and after instrumentation, surface roughness was measured. In addition, the root surface topography was examined after treatment under the scanning electron microscope.

Results:

Significant statistical differences (p<0.05) were observed when comparing the control group (0.48±0.07mm) to the treated groups (hand - 1.246±0.279mm, ultrasonic - 1.468±0.177mm and sonic instrumentation - 1.576±0.20mm). The highest roughness was produced by diamond-coated sonic tip and by ultrasonic universal tip (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

The diamond-coated tip with sonic scaler instrumentation and ultrasonic instrumentation produce similar root surface roughness, higher than curette instrumentation.

Sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontal treatment: a review

Periodontal therapy aims at arresting periodontal infection and maintaining a healthy periodontium. The periodic mechanical removal of subgingival microbial biofilms is essential for controlling inflammatory periodontal disease. Mechanical periodontal therapy consists of scaling, root planing and gingival curettage. The sonic and ultrasonic scalers are valuable tools in the prevention of periodontal disease. The vibration of scaler tips is the main effect to remove the deposits from the dental surface, such as bacterial plaque, calculus and endotoxin. However, constant flushing activity of the lavage used to cool the tips and cavitational activity result in disruption of the weak and unattached subgingival plaque. The aim of the study was to review the safety, efficacy, role and deleterious side-effects of sonic and ultrasonic scalers in mechanical periodontal therapy.

Calculus Removal With Diamond-Coated Ultrasonic Inserts In Vitro

BACKGROUND

Efficient calculus removal is a primary goal in periodontal therapy. Diamond-coated ultrasonic inserts (DIs) offer promise for improved scaling and were evaluated in vitro.

METHODS

Extracted human teeth with moderate to severe calculus had areas of calculus ( approximately 5 x 5 mm) delineated with small burs. Each calculus area was treated under 2.5x magnification to the point of visible root cleanliness with sharp Gracey curets (hand instruments [HIs]), plain ultrasonic inserts (PIs), or ultrasonic inserts with fine-grit diamond coating; the latter two were used in a magnetostrictive ultrasonic instrument at a medium power setting. Each curet or insert was used for four teeth and then replaced by a new instrument. The time needed to clean each tooth/surface was recorded. The total area treated and the area of the residual calculus were calculated using an imaging analysis program.

RESULTS

The mean time required for clinical calculus removal was 29.7 seconds for DIs, 91.9 seconds for PIs, and 49.8 seconds for HIs (all P <0.0001 from each other). Overall, the mean percentage of residual calculus was 6.3% for DIs, 5.4% for PIs, and 3.1% for HIs (significant differences between HIs and the other treatments).

CONCLUSIONS

In vitro calculus removal was faster with DIs, followed by HIs and PIs. More residual calculus was found with the DIs; however, the 1% to 3% difference (93.7% clean versus 94.6% clean versus 96.9% clean with DIs, PIs, and HIs, respectively) does not seem to be clinically significant.

Loss of tooth substance during root planing with various periodontal instruments: an in vitro study

Ultrasonic and power-driven instrumentation is gaining in significance as an acceptable alternative to manual periodontal root treatment. Some question whether they do not remove too much tooth substance. Various ultrasonic scalers, hand instruments and two power-driven systems were compared by assessing the loss of tooth substance due to root instrumentation. Quantitative analysis of this effect of the instruments used was performed on 20 freshly extracted, non-periodontally involved, large human molars. In the first study, 40 specimens were randomly assigned to four groups of treatment: combined use of ultrasonic scaler and Periopolisher diamond-coated inserts (US-POL), hand instruments (MANUAL), Perioplaner-Periopolisher system (PPL-POL) and Periokit ultrasonic-designed scalers (PERIOKIT). The second study involved two treatment groups, ultrasonic scaler alone and hand instruments, each allocated with 20 teeth (small root fragments). An unpaired two-tailed t test was carried out for both studies to compare the average weight loss of root substance with the modes of instrumentation. The level of significance was set at p<or=0.05. The overall results of the first and second experimental trials did not reveal obvious differences in weight loss between the manual, ultrasonic or power-driven root treatments. Based on the results of these two comparative studies, the power-driven inserts or the various ultrasonic scalers tested did not remove more tooth substance than conventional hand instruments. They may thus be a useful alternative for the debridement of root surfaces.